STATE OF CALIFORNIABUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL - COVER SHEETFOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99DF-46 (REV 06/97)Please report dollars in thousands.

Department of Finance915 L StreetSacramento, CA 95814IMS Mail Code: A-15

BCP #CDSS-3

PRIORITY NO.3

ORG. CODE5180

DEPARTMENT

CA Department of Social Services

PROGRAMSocial Services Program

ELEMENTChild Welfare Services

COMPONENT–––––

TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGEStatewide Child Welfare Services Monitoring Unit

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGESContinue the Statewide Child Welfare Services Monitoring Unit (eight limited-term positions for two years) to provide oversight of County Child Services through training, technical assistance, complaint investigations, reviews, evaluation and corrective action.

REQUIRES LEGISLATION

YES NO

CODE SECTION(S) TO BE AMENDED/ADDED

–––––

BUDGET IMPACT—PROVIDE LIST AND MARK IF APPLICABLE

ONE-TIME COST FUTURE SAVINGS

FULL-YEAR COSTS REVENUE

PREPARED BYFrank Kam Fong

DATE–––––

REVIEWED BYMarjorie Kelly

DATE8/13/97

DEPARTMENT DIRECTOREloise Anderson

DATE8/22/97

AGENCY SECRETARY–––––

DATE–––––

IF PROPOSAL AFFECTS ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, DOES OTHER DEPARTMENT CONCUR WITH PROPOSAL?

YES NO ATTACH COMMENTS OF AFFECTED DEPARTMENT, SIGNED AND

DATED BY THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE.

FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REQUESTS, SPECIFY THE DATE SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT (SPR) OR FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (FSR) WAS APPROVED BY DOIT.

DATE ––––– PROJECT # ––––– FSR OR SPR DOF ANALYST USE

(ADDITIONAL REVIEW)CAPITAL OUTLAY TIRU FSCU OSAE CALSTARS

PAGE I-1

STATE OF CALIFORNIABUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL—FISCAL DETAIL STATE OPERATIONSDF-46 (REV 06/97)Please report dollars in thousands.

Department of Finance915 L StreetSacramento, CA 95814IMS Mail Code: A-15

BCP #CDSS-3

DATE11/1/97

TITLE OF PROPOSED CHANGEChild Welfare Services monitoring Unit

PROGRAMSocial Services

ELEMENTChild Welfare Servic

COMPONENT–––––

PERSONNEL YEARSCY BY CURRENT YR. BUDGET YR.

TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES 1 0.0 8.0 $0 $319

SALARY SAVINGS -0.0 -0.4 -0 -16

NET TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES 0.0 7.6 $0 $303

STAFF BENEFITS 2 ––––– ––––– $0 $91

TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 0.0 7.6 $0 $394

OPERATING EXPENSES AND EQUIPMENT 3

GENERAL EXPENSE 0 10PRINTING 0 0COMMUNICATIONS 0 9POSTAGE 0 0TRAVEL—IN STATE 0 123TRAVEL—OUT OF STATE 0 0TRAINING 0 6FACILITIES OPERATIONS 0 34UTILITIES 0 0CONSULTING & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Interdepartmental (provide list) 0 0CONSULTING & PROFESSIONAL: External (provide list) 0 0CONSOLIDATED DATA CENTERS 0 0

Health and Welfare Data Center ( 0 ) (0)Stephen P. Teale Data Center ( 0 ) ( 0 )

DATA PROCESSING 0 5EQUIPMENT (provide list) 0 0DEBT SERVICE 0 0OTHER ITEMS OF EXPENSE: (specify below) 0 0

––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND EQUIPMENT $0 $187SPECIAL ITEMS OF EXPENSE 4 $0 $0

–––––––––––––––

TOTAL STATE OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES $0 $581SOURCE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATION NO.

ORG REF FUNDGENERAL FUND 5180 0001 0001 $0 $465SPECIAL FUNDS 5180 0001 ––––– $0 $0FEDERAL FUNDS 5180 0001 0890 $0 $116OTHER FUNDS (SPECIFY) 5180 0001 ––––– $0 $0REIMBURSEMENTS 5180 0001 0995 $0 $01 ITEMIZED DETAIL ON PAGE I-3 BY CLASSIFICATION AS IN SALARIES AND WAGES SUPPLEMENT.2 PROVIDE DETAIL ON PAGE I-3.3 PROVIDE LIST ON PAGE I-4.4 SPECIAL ITEMS OF EXPENSE MUST BE TITLED. PLEASE REFER TO THE UNIFORM CODES MANUAL FOR A LIST OF THE STANDARDIZED SPECIAL ITEMS OF EXPENSE OBJECT WHICH MAY BE

USED.

PAGE I-2

Fiscal Detail ContinuedLOCAL ASSISTANCE AND DETAIL OF STAFF BENEFITSAND PERSONAL SERVICES

LOCAL ASSISTANCE $(0) $(0)

SOURCE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATION NO.ORG REF FUND

GENERAL FUND 5180 ––––– 0001 $––––– $–––––

SPECIAL FUNDS 5180 ––––– ––––– $––––– $–––––

FEDERAL FUNDS 5180 ––––– 0890 $––––– $–––––

OTHER FUNDS (SPECIFY)

5180 ––––– ––––– $––––– $–––––REIMBURSEMENTS 5180 ––––– 0095 $––––– $–––––

POSITIONS AMOUNT

CLASSIFICATION 1 CY BY SALARY/RANGE CY BY

Children and Family Svcs ––––– ––––– $––––– $––––– $––––– Child Welfare Svcs Branch ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––Staff Svcs Mgr I 0.0 1.0 3,958- 4,775 0 47,496Assoc Govtl Prog Analyst 0.0 6.0 3,430-4,139 0 246,960Ofc Techn-Typing 0.0 1.0 2,038-2,477 0 24,456––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– ––––– –––––TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES

0.0 8.0 ––––– $0 $318,912

CURRENT YEAR BUDGET YEARSTAFF BENEFITS DETAIL (WHOLE DOLLARS)

OASDI $0 $18784HEALTH INSURANCE 0 20602RETIREMENT 2 ––––– 0 36659WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 0 3276INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEAVE 0 0NON-INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEAVE 0 0UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 0 540OTHER 0 11252

TOTAL 3 $0 $91,1121 USE STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS PER THE SALARY SUPPLEMENT; USE FOOTNOTES TO REFLECT ANY EFFECTIVE DATE OR LIMITED TERM IF

POSITION IS NOT PROPOSED FOR A FULL YEAR. NOTE: INFORMATION PROVIDED SHOULD APPEAR IN THE SAME FORMAT AS IT WOULD APPEAR ON THE SCHEDULE 2 (CHANGES IN AUTHORIZED POSITIONS).

2 LIST TYPE OF RETIREMENT, I.E., MISCELLANEOUS, SAFETY, INDUSTRIAL, ETC.3 TOTALS MUST BE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST THOUSAND DOLLARS BEFORE POSTING TO PAGE I-2.

PAGE I-3

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Please report dollars in thousands.DEPARTMENTSocial Services

BCP#CDSS-3

FISCAL YEAR1998-99

IDENTIFY ALL PROPOSED ITEMS WHICH FIT INTO THE CATEGORIES LISTED BELOW. SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE I-7.

CURRENT YEAR BUDGET YEAR BUDGET YEAR + ONE

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

PROPOSED CONTRACTS ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

ONE-TIME COSTS ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

FUTURE SAVINGS ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

FULL-YEAR COST ADJUSTMENTS ––––– ––––– –––––––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

––––– ––––– ––––– –––––

TOTAL $0 $0 $0

PAGE I-4

A. NATURE OF REQUEST

California law and eligibility for Federal funding require the State to monitor and evaluate the provision of CWS. This Budget Change Proposal requests the positions necessary to maintain the minimal ability to comply with federal requirements, enhance protection of children and increase positive outcomes for children and families.

There are currently several activities that will have a direct impact on the type of monitoring and evaluation that will be conducted in the future. The effect of these activities is yet unknown. Activities include efforts at the federal, state, and local levels focusing on administrative oversight of service delivery on specific outcomes and accomplishments and implementation of the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS).

The Department of Social Services is requesting the continuation of the CWS monitoring unit (eight positions) for two years to continue the mandated oversight/monitoring of county operations. This will allow the Department to determine the full impact and benefit of these activities prior to making permanent staffing changes.

B. BACKGROUND/HISTORY

State and federal statutes require the CDSS to establish a system to monitor and evaluate the provision of CWS statewide. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16500 specifies: “The state, through the Department of Social Services and county welfare departments, shall establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services...”

Federal funding is based upon California’s compliance with federal statutory requirements. The State prepares a plan which describes how it will meet federal requirements as found in Titles IV-B and IV-E, 42 United States Code Sections 621 et seq. and 671 et seq. California’s existing Title IV-B State Plan specifies that the State “will obtain information regarding the quality of each county’s CWS program by evaluating the county’s progress in achieving established CWS goals and desired outcomes and/or through reviews of sample cases utilizing questions focused on services to ensure child safety and procedural safeguards for children and families. Technical assistance and training, based on needs identified during evaluations of county CWS programs, will be provided...”

Since 1986, staff from the Children’s Services Operations Bureau (CSOB) have been conducting statewide compliance reviews of county CWS programs to determine county compliance with State and federal laws and regulations, and have provided assistance to counties in the development and implementation of corrective action plans (CAP) to improve performance. Staff have also provided training and technical assistance to county staff to improve their knowledge about CWS regulatory requirements and to enhance their skills and effectiveness.

1

In 1990, the State issued a Formal Notice of Non-Compliance to Los Angeles County, which required the development and implementation of a CAP to address the 27 areas found out of compliance. A unit was established as authorized by the Legislature and was assigned the sole responsibility of monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of Los Angeles County’s corrective action. After two years of CSOB staff’s intensive CAP follow-up and monitoring, Los Angeles County was found in compliance and the Formal Notice of Non-Compliance was withdrawn. Subsequently, a Statewide Child Welfare Monitoring Unit was created to replace the unit previously dedicated only to Los Angeles County.

In 1992, California enacted Senate Bill 1125 (Chapter 1203, Statutes of 1991, which required that the delivery of CWS be driven by individual case plans rather than separate CWS programs. As a consequence, new Division 31 regulations were released and a revised compliance review process was developed and implemented in 1994. Compliance reviews have continued since that time, based on the new regulations.

In October 1996, the Youth Law Center and the National Center For Youth Law jointly filed a lawsuit against the CDSS alleging that the CDSS had consistently failed to meet its legal duty to supervise and monitor the County Child Welfare agencies, which are charged by law to provide services necessary for the health, protection and welfare of children. The lawsuit was dismissed after the CDSS provided evidence that it had planned to continue overseeing county CWS agencies by performing compliance reviews and monitoring county corrective action efforts designed to correct deficiencies.

On March 27, 1997, the CDSS presented its Child Welfare Services Oversight Plan in ALL-COUNTY INFORMATION NOTICE I-18-97. The document describes how the CDSS monitors and evaluates county CWS operations. Existing permanent staff, along with the eight limited-term positions within the Children’s Services Operations Bureau (CSOB), together, work toward providing the comprehensive oversight of county CWS operations through a set of activities that includes training, technical assistance, complaint investigations, reviews, evaluation, and corrective action.

C. STATE LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS/STRATEGIC PLAN

The request for staff resources to monitor and evaluate the provision of CWS statewide correlates directly with strategies/objectives described in the CDSS Strategic Plan.

Strategy 1B: Promote child well being and personal responsibility for adults and parents. (Objective 2: Assess the degree to which programs currently address child well being and personal responsibility.) Information obtained through compliance reviews, emergency response reviews, and interviews with collaborative agency staff will allow the CDSS to evaluate each county’s CWS program to determine if it ensures that appropriate and timely child abuse investigations are completed and that appropriate services are provided to ensure the health and safety of children.

Strategy 2D: Establish outcomes and performance measures for key program areas. (Objective 1: Develop a brief set of guidelines clarifying “outcomes” and how to set

2

performance measures, Objective 2: Identify and evaluate what is currently monitored and measured, Objective 3: Each program develop, with input from staff and external stakeholders, and publish desired outcomes and measures.) Department staff will work with County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) to identify outcome measures/indicators that express desired results in the Child Welfare Services program. Information gathered, as well as, transobserved through monitoring efforts will assist in identifying outcomes and measurements.

Strategy 4D: Provide technical assistance and consultation to meet customer needs and support the achievement of the desired outcomes. (Objective 1: Gather input regarding needs for technical assistance and the current perceptions of current technical assistance efforts and capabilities at CDSS, Objective 2: Implement a problem-solving technical assistance approach throughout CDSS, Objective 3: Benchmark CDSS current technical assistance efforts against “best in class” models in other government organizations, Objective 4: Publicize and promote the technical assistance available to customers, Objective 5: Use existing interactions with customers as a beginning to provide training and other technical assistance.) County and CDSS staff will identify areas in which training and technical assistance will improve program performance, both to correct deficiencies identified and to enhance social worker skills. Children’s Services Operations Bureau staff will provide and/or arrange for technical assistance, consultative advice and training needed to eliminate the deficiencies found so that county Child Welfare Services ensures the health and safety of children.

D. JUSTIFICATION

This proposal seeks to continue eight limited term positions for the Statewide Child Welfare Services Monitoring Unit in the Children’s Services Operations Bureau (1 Staff Services Manager I, 6 Associate Governmental Program Analysts/Staff Services Analysts, and 1 Office Technician).

As required by state and federal statutes, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) develops and implements regulations designed to ensure the health and safety of children and to secure positive outcomes for children and families. The Child Welfare Services (CWS) system is administered by county agencies which are required to investigate allegations of child abuse/neglect and provide case management to the children and their families. Although the 58 county agencies administer the CWS Program under statutes and regulations established by the State, there is significant variation in program operations due to county differences in demographics, administrative structure and philosophy. Such a system is required by state and federal law. Legislative interest in CWS is high as evidenced by various inquiries from State legislators about the CDSS’s Child Welfare monitoring plans and oversight activities. Inquiries from legislators have been both general and case specific in nature.

3

There are 58 individual and independent County CWS agencies which investigate child abuse allegations and provide services, which investigate child abuse allegations and provide services in accordance with federal and state statute. Evaluating and monitoring of each county’s CWS program by CDSS staff is needed to ensure a statewide system exists to protect at-risk children, provide appropriate services to children and families and counties are in compliance with federal and state regulations for receipt of funding.

As part of the oversight function, bureau resources are frequently directed towards helping counties with major problems identified in their CWS program. For example, resources have been used to conduct annual reviews and provide ongoing technical assistance to San Francisco County, which was issued a Formal Notice of Non-Compliance in November 1992 as a result of the bureau’s extensive efforts to help improve San Fransisco county’s CWS program, the county came into substantial compliance, and the formal Notice of Non-Compliance was withdrawn. In addition, extensive technical assistance has been provided and continues to be provided to Lake County, which was reviewed in 1994 as a result of complaints from many concerned citizens. Most recently, during 1996 and continuing in 1997, CSOB staff have participated in and conducted special reviews in Sacramento County related to highly publicized child death cases.

The existing permanent managerial, clerical and analytical positions in the CSOB are not sufficient to perform statewide compliance reviews, monitor corrective action efforts, and provide technical assistance to help counties come into compliance when deficiencies are identified. The permanent staff positions are responsible for all operational issues that arise statewide in the delivery of CWS such as developing and providing training on the CWS program; providing onsite and telephone consultation and technical assistance to counties regarding CWS regulations, policies and systems; answering numerous complaints and inquiries from individuals, legislators, and child advocates; and handling other situations that require the immediate attention of CSOB staff (e.g., responding to lawsuits; coordinating with Community Care Licensing, Adoptions, and Foster Care staff on common issues concerning children, etc.).

The fact that only four counties have been found to be in substantial compliance for the CWS compliance reviews out of over 48 reviews subsequent to 1986 demonstrates the need for a strong State role in comprehensive oversight in order to ensure critical improvements in CWS programs statewide. As of August 1997, improved performance has been demonstrated, but monitoring of corrective action efforts continued for the following counties: Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Lake, Lassen, San Benito, Stanislaus and Sutter. Monitoring was no longer needed for counties that had effectively addressed all areas found to be out of compliance such as San Mateo and Tuolumne. The staff positions in the Statewide Child Welfare Services Monitoring Unit should be continued within the CSOB because of the high priority, need for a statewide CWS system that ensures the protection of children.

During FY 1997-98, implementation of the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) will result in some changes in the process for conducting compliance reviews because case information will be available through automation.

4

Since the CWS/CMS application reflects a very complex “business”, which involves inputting and accessing data involving reports of abuse, extensive case management activities, actions involving the juvenile court, health and education information, temporary housing and caretaker information, etc., county social workers can be expected to take from 6-12 months after the CWS/CMS is implemented in their county to become familiar enough with the application be fully productive in performing their work. Typically, a given population of workers will experience varying degrees of lost productivity based on their ability to understand, assimilate, and put into practice the skills and knowledge needed to use a new system and master a new business practice.

In addition, many counties have experienced problems with the CWS/CMS during implementation such as getting duplicate cases, being unable to enter data in a timely manner, losing data that is entered, etc. Until problems with the massive statewide CWS automation effort can be identified and corrected, and until sufficient time has elapsed to allow for counties to automate all their case records, compliance reviews will be completed utilizing a combination of hardcopy and electronic data.

As reviews through automation become possible, CDSS will be conducting more timely reviews in each county, analyzing data obtained, and providing more extensive technical assistance designed to help counties with both corrective action and program improvements. In addition, more focus will be placed on developing outcome measures/indicators that express desired results and positive outcomes for children and families. The information gathered can be analyzed and used to identify county training needs and any changes in county-specific or statewide policy that may be required.

Full implementation of CWS/CMS in all counties will not be completed until the end of 1997. Following implementation it will be necessary to assess the impact of data available within CWS/CMS. After the system is fully and consistently implemented and the data entered is both complete and accurate, the information collected is expected to meet federal monitoring requirements.

Data from the CWS/CMS will not be accurate or complete until sufficient time has elapsed for data to be input after all counties are fully implemented, all social workers are proficient with utilizing the automated system, and all major CWS/CMS application problems have been identified and corrected.

Accordingly, limited-term positions are needed for two years to allow sufficient time to gather data that is accurate and comprehensive, which can be used to evaluate the full impact and benefits of utilizing the CWS/CMS for oversight purposes. All oversight activities during this two year period can then be carefully evaluated to determine what permanent staffing changes should be made in order for the State to have a system that monitors and evaluates the provision of CWS statewide which ensures the safety of children and ensures that Title IV-B requirements are met.

5

The chart below provides a projected timeline of CWS/CMS and other activities associated with the Children’s Services Operations Bureau which documents the need for two year positions.

December 1997 - June 1998 July 1998 - June 1999 July 1999 - June 2000· Learning curve after

CWS/CMS implementation in final counties.

· Development and refinement of Compliance Review process using systems generated data.

· Establish CWS outcome measures

· Continued county CWS data input following learning curve for last counties to implement CWS/CMS.

· Compliance Reviews based on refined process for using systems generated data..

· Develop process to capture and display outcome data.

· Compliance Review and program management reports generated based on one year of complete data.

· Evaluation and validation of reports generated.

· Modification of data gathering processes as needed.

· Evaluation of all CSOB activities and full impact of CWS/CMS for oversight purposes/

· Develop and submit BCP on permanent staffing changes needed for CWS oversight function.

Goals/Objectives

The goals of the Children’s Services Operations Bureau are to:

1. Improve the public health and safety of children in CWS programs.

2. Provide regular reviews and intensive monitoring to comply with federal and State statutes/regulations and to ensure the successful provision of CWS statewide.

Functional Descriptions of Staff Being Requested

As described in the CDSS Child Welfare Services Oversight Plan mentioned earlier, the CDSS takes a balanced approach in monitoring and evaluating county CWS programs. Oversight actions that will be performed by the 8 limited-term positions being requested are described as follows.

The six (6) AGPA/SSA staff will:

1. Conduct compliance reviews to identify the nature and magnitude of county adherence to regulations. (Reviews will also include communication with county CWS collaboratives such as mental health, public health, education, and law enforcement to obtain information regarding working relationships between these agencies and the CWS agency. Problems identified will be shared with the county CWS agency to enhance working relationships, address unmet needs, avoid duplication of services, etc.)

2. Conduct case specific reviews for problematic situations to assist counties with identifying and making any needed changes in policy and operations to help prevent similar occurrences.

6

3. Provide training and technical assistance to increase county staffs’ knowledge of regulatory requirements and essential skills for service delivery.

4. Approve county Corrective Action Plans and track and review all actions taken by counties to correct identified problems/deficiencies. (Provide technical assistance to counties in the development of corrective action plans and monitor all corrective action efforts.)

5. Work with the CWDA and appropriate stakeholders to utilize CWS/CMS to produce reports that reflect compliance review findings and outcome measurements which can be used to identify potential training needs and/or policy changes that may be needed in a specific county or statewide.

The Office Technician will provide general office support including: answering telephones; arranging meetings; controlling mail; typing reports, memorandums and correspondence; ordering supplies; routing information; completing various monthly reports; filing materials; and performing other general clerical services as needed.

In addition to supervising 6 analysts and 1 office technician, SSM I supervisory activities will include: unit planning; problem solving; intra- and inter-bureau communication; communication with counties; assigning and reviewing work; monitoring performance and preparing performance reports; planning and conducting staff meetings to share information; attending entrance and exit conferences as needed; and general supervisory responsibilities.

E. ANALYSIS OF ALL FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Assumptions and Constraints

1. The requested limited-term positions will allow approximately 18-20 counties to be reviewed for minimum compliance annually. It is estimated, based on prior history, that two counties will pass and 18 will fail. Corrective action plans will be developed and technical assistance will be provided for all counties that fail a compliance review. The comprehensive reviews will also include gathering information regarding working relationships between county CWS agency and collaborative agencies to help enhance working relationships, address unmet needs, and avoid duplication of services.

2. County compliance with State Division 31 requirements and with requirements for federal funding remains a high State priority.

3. Sufficient funds will be made available for staff to travel statewide.

7

Alternative A:

Continue the following eight limited-term positions to assure sustained statewide compliance: One (1) Staff Services Manager I, six (6) Associate Governmental Program Analysts/Staff Services Analysts, and one (1) Office Technician.

Pros:

¨ Fulfills State and federal mandates regarding CDSS’s responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the CWS system statewide.

¨ Provides identification of CWS program areas which require corrective action and facilitates corrective action implementation, resulting in program improvement.

¨ Meets the needs of the Legislature and of children’s advocates in providing a “system of statewide child welfare services” to ensure the health and safety of children.

¨ Offers greater flexibility for reevaluating staff resource needs and specific job duties due to any programmatic changes and CWS/CMS implementation.

Cons:

¨ Personnel and travel costs will not be reduced.

¨ Limited-term status limits ability to implement multi-year training and technical assistance plans.

Alternative B:

Permanently establish eight (8) positions described under Alternative A to assure sustained statewide compliance.

Pro:

¨ Same benefits as found under Alternative A items 1-3 and provides ability to implement multi-year training and technical assistance efforts.

Cons:

¨ Personnel and travel costs will not be reduced.

¨ Permanent status may result in less flexibility to adjust resources due to future programmatic changes.

8

Alternative C:

Contract with the Bureau of State Audits or with a private agency to perform compliance reviews and to work with counties in developing corrective action plans.

Pro:

¨ Will provide resources to conduct compliance reviews and to help counties to develop correction plans if deficiencies are found.

Con:

¨ May be more costly than retaining existing and trained CDSS staff to provide statewide oversight.

F. TIMETABLE

The CSOB requests that the eight (8) limited-term positions be continued for two additional years effective July 1, 1998.

G. RECOMMENDATION

Alternative A, continue the eight (8) limited-term positions for two additional years in the CSOB, is the recommended alternative. This alternative provides the needed resources to support counties’ efforts to comply with federal and State laws and regulations and ensures the successful provision of CWS statewide. If this is not achieved, there will be a negative impact on local programs, and the public health and safety of children will be jeopardized. The limited-term status allows for the flexibility in re-evaluating program needs and adjusting resources as appropriate.

9